Carrying Rifles and Shotguns openly

D

Doug.38PR

Moderator
A while back, I posted a thread about a neighborhood riot senario where neighbors united and armed themselves to defend hearth and home against rioters bearing rifles and shotguns.

One of the objections voiced to this was that it is illegal to carry long guns openly.

This same thing is voiced in several minutemen postings about how they won't allow rifles.

But is that true? Is it illegal (in certain states or all?) to openly carry rifles in public?

I always kind of assumed it was considering all this.

However, what calls this into question is the fact that the Black Panthers over the weekend were assembled military style at Duke University ARMED openly with rifles and shotguns with their black uniforms and everything.
 
Last edited:
If the Black Panthers do it, it's okay.

If anyone else does it, it is either a "hate crime" or "domestic terrorism.":barf: :barf: :barf: :barf:
 
In a riot situation, I would worry more about protecting my self and family than the legality of it all. If a riot breaks out into suburbia and threatens my home, the police have pretty much failed miserably and I am on my own. If a cop pulls up to coment about my shotgun, I'll just wait for the angry mob to start throwing things at him, then lay down some cover fire for him. Then we will see if the law minds.

Remember, the police are not legaly compelled to save you, but in some states, you are legaly compelled to save them.
 
IF the B.P. want to carry guns then power to them. As long as they don't use them.:D

Seriously though, I'm glad the panthers carry. It is their right as americans.

I carry my guns in the open all the time, I have to park quite a ways from my apartment and I walk with my AK, SKS, MPA-10, or whatever across 2 blocks of residential to get to/fro my car. I don't think I would try walking around Downtown or anything, not because I think it would be illegal, but because I don't want to have to explain WHY I'm walking around with an AK.

It is not illegal to carry a rifle openly. (at least here in OK) If it was, then anyone leaving a gun shop or a firing range would be breaking the law when they have to walk back to their car. It WILL get you some attention though.

As far as Riots go, Why would you be walking around with your family if you thought you were in enough danger to warrant a rifle? Why not keep them safe Indoors?
 
For your question, it depends on the State

and even in states that allow open carry of long guns it may depend on the state police and governer at the moment. It is not unusual for folks to openly carry in defense of their neighborhoods. Been done many times in the past. I remember my father back in the 70's having to do guard duty to protect a new private school that had been built because it was rumored somefolks in the county didn't want a private school and were going to distroy it. As we are aware the local law didn't not have the ability to protect the property.
 
It depends on your neighborhood. In the rich neighborhoods, folks are waited on hand and foot and never lift a finger to do anything themselves. Or that is my impression. There are professional security people to take care of that. It rather goes along with the concept that to do anything, you need a license or a permit, a certificate and all sorts of special training. I have the same impression of many people on this forum, who I suspect would insist that anyone owning a firearm go to a two week training course, usually somewhere Way Out West, and if they couldn't score expert, be strongly discouraged from touching a gun.

In more ordinary neighborhoods, it can vary a lot. Around here where I live, it isn't common but it apparently doesn't cause any alarm if a long gun is in view as when you are transporting it or whatnot. My brother-in-law stopped by last fall, having received a bunch of rifles from his father. We were loading his truck with some other stuff that had been stored at our house and in the course of doing that, had all these laid out on the driveway or otherwise being examined. I didn't know he had so many old guns but they were in awful shape.

But there is another place on the other side of D.C., the suburb of Takoma Park, where such a thing might cause a panic. That's the place where it is illegal to set off nuculear bombs within the city limits, you know.
 
Riot scenario:

I protect my family, self, and property. Period. The fact that a riot is going on means law enforcement has failed. Furthermore, in the scenario, if you have not fired on or otherwise challenged anyone except in self defense, law enforcement has no RIGHT to ask you to surrendur your weapon. If he insists, place him under citizen's arrest for attempting to violate the Constitution and threatening the safety of your family and self by removing your means to defend yourself.

I took the oath to "protect and defend the Constitution agaisnt all enemies, foreign and domestic" and I take it very seriously. And those rights garaunteed therein were earned in blood of servicemen who have gone before me, and I will not let their sacrifice be in vain.



And btw, a similar scenario happened in New Orleans in the Katrina aftermath - law-abiding citizens INSIDE THEIR OWN HOMES had their firearms confiscated by "law enforcement".
 
Seriously though, I'm glad the panthers carry. It is their right as americans.
Click to expand...
Their "right" to carry under such circumstances is not legitimate. They were brandishing, not carrying and that is a big difference.

Looking at the bigger picture they are revolutionaries whose express desire is the overthrow of our government and society so I would suppose they might be considered Americans in the same sense that Confederate soldiers were considered Americans. Panthers would not give you the same benefit of rights were you a citizen choosing to sit on your porch with your own gun while their parade passed. They would shoot you and leave you to bleed to death.

This has nothing to do with the right to openly carry a rifle or shotgun. It has to do with the privilage of a vocal few to intimidate citizens. (Lest anyone think I'm not being equal oportunity here I'd say the same thing about Klansmen as I do Panthers.)
 
Doug, your scenario at a 30 minute time line until the riot arrived at your house, IIRC.

As trouble was clearly coming to you, that is quite a different situation from just strolling around with a long arm. That depends on the state and city. Remember while technically legal, the law can get you for other thingees. You may beat the charge after you take the ride.

So are you asking about an emergency situation or just a stroll? Even in an emergency, the law will be on edge as will neighbors. I wouldn't stroll around with the gun unless I had a very specific risk in close proximity.

If there was no emergency, strolling with a long gun is probably a risky thing to do. Look at the Washington Mall shooting - guy with a long arm.

If you were outside the mall on a nice sunny day with the family and you see a guy strolling into the mall with an SKS or AK, do you go over and congratulate him on his love of the RKBA?

About the Black Panthers - life is complex. If they had the legal right to do it, more power to them. After the Jasper incident, some African-American organizations held demonstratons in town and carried long arms. Some white folks got all upset about this on forums as they dropped back into the old racist basis of many gun control laws.

If the gun carrying action by them was illegal but the march was - then sometimes police might use discretion rather than start a rather large gun fight. Now, folks who are sticklers for the law - aren't they following the Constitution and the local laws are infringements? Why get all upset if the police uphold the 2nd for these folks. Unless, you are having a hissy fit because they are African-Americans. Go march the next day and demand the same rights under the 2nd. Of course, if you make that march a complaint about Blacks with guns - then - well you get my point.
 
Mr. Meyer,
I would be willing to bet you money that if the local Klan chapter of North Carolina had showed up at the University bearing long guns instead of the Black Panthers then the local Sheriff or Police would have been all over them like a duck on a junebug.

I don't mind blacks having guns. But I do mind double standards.

In other words, if blacks do it then it's the right to keep and bear arms, if whites do it then it's brandishing firearms.

The ruling elites seem to be quick to crack down on white militant groups like the Klan (and rightly so depending on if they are violating the law) but afraid to say anything when black militants do the same thing.

Either of the two groups do have the right to bear arms as citizens under the Second Amendment of the U.S. and North Carolina State Constitutions as far as I am concerned as long as they are not truly brandishing them against others.


As to the late riot senario, I would think that a riot situation in the area would give you even more legal grounds for openly carrying a long gun than on a peaceful sunny day. The former makes sense, the latter is questionable (even if legal)
 
I do not agree that the BP have the right to carry rifles openly when it is meant to intimidate. That is in effect brandishing. There is not other reason for them to carrry except to instill fear and intimidate.

The 2nd does not protect such.

Jerry
 
I do not agree that the BP have the right to carry rifles openly when it is meant to intimidate. That is in effect brandishing. There is not other reason for them to carrry except to instill fear and intimidate.

The 2nd does not protect such.

Jerry
Click to expand...

+P.

It's not a defensive stance they were taking but rather an aggressive stance bearing weapons against an unhostile institution.
 
I agree with others..if there are marauders combing the neighborhood, who cares about a carry law...the police aren't there to protect you...so who is going to arrest you under those circumstances..of course you could use a cheap lawyer for a shield...
 
How does one decide that carrying weapons is to intimidate?

One could argue that the Minutemen on the border with arms (said to be only for protection) are to intimidate and produce fear.

I could write more but given a basic understanding of the 2nd Amend, if the BP weren't directly threatening folks with the guns (not just carrying) them - this issue and the issue of the double standard are just a subset of 'black man with a gun' hysteria.
 
How does one decide that carrying weapons is to intimidate?

One could argue that the Minutemen on the border with arms (said to be only for protection) are to intimidate and produce fear.

I could write more but given a basic understanding of the 2nd Amend, if the BP weren't directly threatening folks with the guns (not just carrying) them - this issue and the issue of the double standard are just a subset of 'black man with a gun' hysteria.
Click to expand...

+1

If a group of white Americans wearing NRA shirts participates in an open carry demonstration the anti 2A crowd can say just as easily that they carried their weapons to intimidate.

Unless the group outright threatens somebody then I would not call it brandishing. The BPs could just as easily say they had the weapons to let people know that they would be able to defend themselves if attacked, kind of the same reason we give all the time for CCW...
 
Remember, the police are not legaly compelled to save you, but in some states, you are legaly compelled to save them.
Click to expand...

Well what do you expect? They are first-class citizens, commoner! Keep that in mind. Now move along.

+1

If a group of white Americans wearing NRA shirts participates in an open carry demonstration the anti 2A crowd can say just as easily that they carried their weapons to intimidate.

Unless the group outright threatens somebody then I would not call it brandishing. The BPs could just as easily say they had the weapons to let people know that they would be able to defend themselves if attacked, kind of the same reason we give all the time for CCW...
Today 10:11 AM
Click to expand...

Make that +2. Well said, Musketeer. And if you're the same Musketeer as on PDO, hello again!
 
[How does one decide that carrying weapons is to intimidate?

One could argue that the Minutemen on the border with arms (said to be only for protection) are to intimidate and produce fear.

I could write more but given a basic understanding of the 2nd Amend, if the BP weren't directly threatening folks with the guns (not just carrying) them - this issue and the issue of the double standard are just a subset of 'black man with a gun' hysteria.]

It is so obvious that they were meant to intimidate that I wonder if you are serious??

The Minutemen cannot carry a rifle, but only a handgun. It is very different to be looking through binocs and informing the Border Patrol, and marching with guns in a city street. Is that not an obvious difference?

I guess if not, then you will never understand. The 2nd is not without limitataions. It does not allow you to threaten another unless under attack.

Jerry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top